Long - Time to go.

[Gordons Cumming]

Gylfi was shooting all the time

in 38 (5) games he had 131 shots to get his 20 goals, about 3.6 shots per game
but remember he was taking all the penalties (9 taken, 8 scored)

Take those out 122 shots, about 3 per game, and he scored 12 goals (3 of which were FCs)


So he was scoring 1 in 10 shots. That's 110 misses and 12 goals (3 of which were FCs)

He was crap. Good riddance!

[handbags_harris]

According to the OS Long has had 56% of his shots on target, this season (compared with Gylfi's 27%)

In the whole season he has only had 15 shots off target, less than 1 a game.

If we're going to have statistics we could at least have standardised statistics please. If you're giving statistics comparing shots on and off target, then either give one or the other, or both. Personally I'd rather see number of shots as that is a fairly good indicator about how often a player is in a position to possibly score. 15 shots off target, less than two a game. How many on target please Snowball...?

Why ask when you know?


19 ON 15 Off. So he's averaging a shot on target per game, a little less than a miss per game

I didn't know. What i did know was that it wouldn't be very many. He's our main striker, the number nine, and he's had less than two shots per game? If he chooses to pass when in a good position, or has a p*ss poor touch (all too often I'm afraid) resulting in a tackle, or doesn't get in the box to get on the end of a cross, or doesn't move particularly intelligently, or just doesn't shoot often enough, is it any wonder he doesn't score particularly often?

[cmonurz]

Tbh when only 1 of those 34 shots has hit the onion bag, I'd sooner it wasn't Shane having a pop at goal.

[Millsy]

Boring, 2WW

[Victor Meldrew]

So Snowball as Long has 56% of his shots on target and he scores just one goal then somebody should tell the Irish eejut "Don't aim at the f****** keeper."
The idea is to get it past him and football is not some crazy Gaelic game where you try to hit the keeper or try to miss the goal completely.

[floyd__streete]

19 ON 15 Off. So he's averaging a shot on target per game, a little less than a miss per game

he's managing to get a mere single shot on target each game? F*ck me, that is even more woeful than I expected.

[Blue Hooped Moose]

McAnuff would be good. He's reliable. He occasionally has an accident and the ball goes in the net, but basically he's the most consistent player at passing the ball to the opposition keeper.

Based on what exactly? Because he's had so many shots on target but hasn't scored many, therefore the shot must've been straight at the keeper? Ok... take out the penalties (not just because I know it winds you up, but because pens do distort the figures).
You're left with.... oh. A strike rate of 1 goal per 19 games for both Long and McAnuff. So our winger has the same strike rate as our lone striker. Not good. We should play Harte up front - he scores 1 in 2.

Make your mind up. Didn't you just say he'd played more games?

Your point was to try and say how well Long had done in only having 15 shots off target - if you like we'll make it more stat-friendly and remove the number of games played and base it on a per-game basis - even then practically every player (Hunt excluded) has a lower number of shots off target per game.

As someone put above - splitting the shots like this doesn't help. But even with total shots Long averages 1.8 a game. How come Hunt (3.4) almost doubles that and other players (McAnuff, Howard and Kebe) are close to the same ratio and they're not even dedicated strikers?!

Seriously - 2 shots a game?!?! From a lone striker??!

[Snowball]

19 ON 15 Off. So he's averaging a shot on target per game, a little less than a miss per game

he's managing to get a mere single shot on target each game? F*ck me, that is even more woeful than I expected.

Last season he played 24 (12) = 26 games and had 24 ON TARGET and 20 OFF

same ratio almost exactly. Didn't stop him scoring NINE goals, 8 in open play, did it?

His shots on target were converted to goals 38% of the time


You can do it the Siggy way, just shoot when you have any chance including oxf*rd chance
and even then you only get 3.3 shots per game. The "sterile" Shane Long gets 2 per game
but (prior to this run this year) he converted shots-on-target very well indeed


These figures are NOT unusual


Church has 30 ON 33 OFF last season in 27 (15) = 29.5 games

Again, 1 shot per game on target, 1 shot OFF target, and he converted 12 of the 30 or 40%

Gylfi's 71 On 60 OFF? He turned those into 20 goals (but 7 or 8 were penalties)

INCLUDING his penalties he only converted his OT shots at 28% (a lot worse than Long or Church)
Take out the penalties and his figures are 63 ON 59 OFF for 13 goals = 20.6% of OT shots become goals

[handbags_harris]

INCLUDING his penalties he only converted his OT shots at 28% (a lot worse than Long or Church) Take out the penalties and his figures are 63 ON 59 OFF for 13 goals = 20.6% of OT shots become goals

You don't expect Sigurdsson, our set piece taker and player who scored a good number of long range free kicks, to score with the same ratio as Shane Long when his shots were, on the whole, taken a lot further out? A 28% conversion rate for shots on target, the majority of which were mainly outside the area, or in other words a slightly more than a 1 in 4 conversion rate, I would class as pretty damn superb. Probably part of the reason why Sigurdsson was sold for £7 million. Shane Long, if ever sold by Reading, won't be sold for anything near seven figures.

[Snowball]

19 ON 15 Off. So he's averaging a shot on target per game, a little less than a miss per game

he's managing to get a mere single shot on target each game? F*ck me, that is even more woeful than I expected.

Guys, how many chances do you think strikers actually GET?

Here is Doyle's last season. In 39 (02) games he had 74 shots LESS than 2 per game


2008-09 43 31 18 39 02 39.34 Games Doyle
2008-09 32 32 13 29 10 30.70 Games Hunt
2008-09 17 15 09 15 26 19.42 Games Long
2008-09 16 10 02 09 01 09.17 Games Kitson
2008-09 11 10 01 08 04 08.68 Games Lita



That's raw data Year -ON target- OFF - Goals - Starts - Sub - "Games"

Now look at it when you divide by number of games. Guess who was the most prolific?

YEAR --- ON - OFF G/Gme ST Sb Games
2008-09 1.09 0.79 0.458 39 02 39.34 Doyle
2008-09 1.04 1.04 0.423 29 10 30.70 Hunt
2008-09 0.88 0.77 0.463 15 26 19.42 Long
2008-09 1.74 1.09 0.218 09 01 09.17 Kitson
2008-09 1.27 1.15 0.115 08 04 08.68 Lita

.463 Goals per Game LONG
.458 Goals per Game DOYLE
.423 Goals per Game HUNT
.218 Goals per Game KITSON
.115 Goals per Game LITA


SHOTS PER GAME 2008-09

2.83 shots per game Kitson (second worst in terms of GOALS per game)
2.42 shots per game Lita (but total crap in terms of GOALS)
2.08 shots per game Hunt (middle on shots and middle on goals)
1.88 shots per Game Doyle (second least shots per game, but near-top on Goals per game)
1.65 shots per game Long (but BEST in terms of GOALS per game)

[Snowball]

Your point was to try and say how well Long had done in only having 15 shots off target - if you like we'll make it more stat-friendly and remove the number of games played and base it on a per-game basis - even then practically every player (Hunt excluded) has a lower number of shots off target per game.

No, not really. Just making the point that he isn't blazing mis-shots everywhere.

He has always been deadlier than Doyle (prior to this season)

[Ian Royal]

I couldn't give a rats arse what Sig's accuracy or goals to shot ratio was. He scored a lorry load full of goals for us. Something Long has never done in his time for us, despite being a striker, not a midfielder and having multiple Premier League & Championship seasons experience.

FFS Sig scored 2/3rds the goals in half the starts Long has made, completely discounting the fact Long had SEVENTY TWO more sub appearances as well, in his first season at any decent level.

Long needs to get in positions where he can shoot more, shoot more, and score more. In a partnership his deficiencies are less obvious and with conventional wingers his strengths come to the fore in his running on to the end of good head high crosses and burying the ball.

But as we're seeing this season (because he doesn't seem to be running onto the crosses he does get) actually he's really not that good at compensating for a lack of power with placement good enough to beat a keeper.

His one open play goal this season is something he'll repeat maybe another dozen times in his career, it just came off. It's not something to suggest he'll score many more in open play.

[Snowball]

You don't expect Sigurdsson, our set piece taker and player who scored a good number of long range free kicks, to score with the same ratio as Shane Long when his shots were, on the whole, taken a lot further out? A 28% conversion rate for shots on target, the majority of which were mainly outside the area, or in other words a slightly more than a 1 in 4 conversion rate, I would class as pretty damn superb. Probably part of the reason why Sigurdsson was sold for £7 million. Shane Long, if ever sold by Reading, won't be sold for anything near seven figures.

No, Gylfi was a wasteful player.

Look at his figures NOW.

Now he is getting 75% on target (150% improvement) and converting 42% (also 150% improvement)

Those two 150% MULTIPLY and his overall conversion rate is 225% better than it was at Reading

[Victor Meldrew]

Snowball,
In 100 pages or so you have given us your version of Shane's life story ever since he came to our club and occasionally bits about his achievements in the old country.
However I don't think I have read anywhere whether you actually think he is any good.

Most of us on here see him as yet another Irish labourer-one who gets on with the job,works very hard at something he is not very good at and somehow gets paid more in a fortnight than most Irish labourers get paid in a whole year but unlike the others he goes crying to his boss when a few people moan at him.

I would seriously like to read your critique on him (no so called facts) because as a professional writer (and one who has spent such a ridiculous amount of time on the subject matter you must now be an expert) you could easily put your feelings into words.
I am sure I speak for others in that we just don't get what you,Father McDermott and the ancient Italian see in him and quite seriously would appreciate your views but please no stats.

[Wycombe Royal]

You don't expect Sigurdsson, our set piece taker and player who scored a good number of long range free kicks, to score with the same ratio as Shane Long when his shots were, on the whole, taken a lot further out? A 28% conversion rate for shots on target, the majority of which were mainly outside the area, or in other words a slightly more than a 1 in 4 conversion rate, I would class as pretty damn superb. Probably part of the reason why Sigurdsson was sold for £7 million. Shane Long, if ever sold by Reading, won't be sold for anything near seven figures.

No, Gylfi was a wasteful player.

LOL.

I can't really add anything more than that.

[handbags_harris]

You don't expect Sigurdsson, our set piece taker and player who scored a good number of long range free kicks, to score with the same ratio as Shane Long when his shots were, on the whole, taken a lot further out? A 28% conversion rate for shots on target, the majority of which were mainly outside the area, or in other words a slightly more than a 1 in 4 conversion rate, I would class as pretty damn superb. Probably part of the reason why Sigurdsson was sold for £7 million. Shane Long, if ever sold by Reading, won't be sold for anything near seven figures.

No, Gylfi was a wasteful player.

oxf*rd me

[Alan Partridge]

It doesn't mean anything at all. These 'stats' where a 5 yard scuffed pearoller of a shot that the keeper gathers comfortably would count as a shot on target yet a potential 20 yard screamer that has the keeper beaten but hits the post or goes inches wide would count as a shot off target and would count less in these magnificent stats from Stats Domino.

Shane Long in having played the vast majority of every match this season has scored 1 goal, an absolute belter in open play. Something that isn't likely to repeat itself. He's been presented with numerous chances in recent weeks to win matches for his team but has fluffed his lines on every single occasion. Whether he's done well or his teams done well to create chances he's been the chief culprit in missing some excellent chances to get another 6 points on the boards. You'd expect more from an international centre forward because some of them haven't been difficult.

He's not alone, Church too has missed one or two great chances but then again he's not very good either.

[cmonurz]

If Gylfi is a wasteful player, what is the definition of a player who scores 1 in 34 attempts on goal?

[Alan Partridge]

If Gylfi is a wasteful player, what is the definition of a player who scores 1 in 34 attempts on goal?

Dog Eggs.

[From Despair To Where?]

Last season he played 24 (12) = 26 games and had 24 ON TARGET and 20 OFF

same ratio almost exactly. Didn't stop him scoring NINE goals, 8 in open play, did it?

His shots on target were converted to goals 38% of the time



Church has 30 ON 33 OFF last season in 27 (15) = 29.5 games

Again, 1 shot per game on target, 1 shot OFF target, and he converted 12 of the 30 or 40%

So what you're saying is Church is a better goalscorer than Long.

That's funny, the biggest criticism of Church is his lack of composure in front of goal, yet the stats show he's better than Long.

Make your own mind up on that one